• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Horza

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    'Straya, love it or leave it!

Recent Profile Visitors

10,586 profile views
  1. Cannot wait for the next round of "See? We're super tolerant of you people, now piss off" columns nestled next to "Once more Christians are in fabulous queer peril".
  2. Good diplomacy? Cos this year all that's come out of the US is crazily unrealistic preconditions for talks backed up with a barrage of posturing. EDIT: also, you know how two months ago I was saying how if everyone kept insisting that North Korea needed to test a warhead on a missile for their program to be considered credible, then they would adopt that yardstick? Well guess what:
  3. Note that the general doesn't even say that: He says he has an advisory role and he specifically doesn't say he'll refuse insane orders, only illegal ones, and those he will refine in order to produce something legal. He also rather conveniently assumes that Trump will display a sudden interest in legality and take advice on board. If that doesn't turn out to be the case it could get quite complicated. (Also the publicly available info on the chain of command suggests it goes: Donald > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff > Stratcom > These guys so it's not clear Hynter would even be in a position to discuss the Bozeman annihilation order). I don't want to get too categorical, it's possible that the CJCS would try and halt a rash, Fox-and-Friends-induced order to melt Pyongyang, maybe even successfully. But the people who study this stuff say US nuclear chain of command is all about enabling Presidential authorisation, not challenging it. In that way, the US president is the absolute monarch of a kingdom of nukes.
  4. An illegal order would be something like him tweeting '@STRATCOM nuke Bozeman Montana everyone is saying how boring it is now TOTAL MAKEOVER NEEDED!'. If he ordered an attack on an ally, or Peru or somewhere, that also might be refused. Other than than, the entire US nuclear command and control architecture is about ensuring the President, and only the President has the authority to authorise and direct the use of nuclear weapons and making sure those orders are rapidly executed. If it's an order like nuke North Korea, China, Russia, etc, those orders are legal and the codes are in the football.
  5. Christensen's electorate got a higher Yes vote than mine...
  6. So, to be clear for some nazis, it is a tactical question. For others the ideological components that go into that prioritisation can be quite diverse, depending on the group. For a lot of nazis, it's the same old stuff ideology-wise: eliminationist antisemitism. They identify Jewish people with liberalism, socialism, capitalism, pluralism and internationalism all of which they consider conspiracies aimed at the white race. Some play the respectibility game like Richard Spencer, some run meth labs and have fraud convictions in a dozen states. Then you get these other strains that share the opposition to liberalism, etc., but aren't about the eliminationist anti-semitism. @dmc515 identified the evangelical far right types who have white supremacist politics in general but believe Israel is key to unlocking the apocalyse. Some of the white nationalist and scientific racist crowd aren't exponents because their IQ pseudoscience is all about anti-black racism. More broadly some white supremacists are antisemitic but admire the state of Israel, and have adjusted their racial hierachy ladder accordingly - Bannon and a lot of his followers seem to be in this camp.
  7. That was you trying? I have no idea why this observation has brought you to this place and I am not terribly interested in unpicking it given the absense of good faith that has characterised your responses (why does no one ever follow through with their opening rhetorical commitments "not to be an [x]"). You can't seem to summarise my position accurately and from the start I don't think you wanted to. Your efforts not to grasp the point that ideological differences produce differing priorities, which in turn produce conflict between nazi organisations have been herculean and I'll leave you to bask in the accomplishment.
  8. Given that my efforts so far have failed to satisfactorily answer your as yet un-elaborated objections to a point of mine that you agree with but can't figure out the importance of (and keep mis-stating, even though I've outlined it clearly twice), I'm not seeing why I should do that.
  9. I said that right at the start. Why did I even bother?
  10. I don't really get where this objection is coming from. If one set of nazis construes their nazi ideology in such a way that prioritises hating Jews over hating Muslims that's an observation about nazis, not Muslims or Jews. If it affects their respective political activity then that's also worth noting. Neither observation changes the fact that both sets of nazis are nazis.
  11. To see how this plays out, look at Bannon. This is a guy who has actively worked to advance the alt-right agenda at every turn, including promoting blatantly antisemitic voices. Yet when he was in office, his priorities whiteboard included moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem as a key foreign policy goal. Is Bannon some kind of antisemite? Almost certainly, but his flavour of white supremacy clearly looks elsewhere for its primary scourge. For some white supremacists this is a step too far. While these creeps aren't averse to the odd bit of nudge-nudge-wink-winkery, they're bothered by Bannon and Breitbart's pro-Israel stance, which they regard as an insult everything Uncle Adolf butchered for. Is Bannon cynically using nazis to build his political empire? Are real raving nazis just hopping on the Alt-Right bandwagon? It's hard to tell, particularly because everyone's playing nice now that their preferred candidate won the highest office in the land but the bottom line is that some nazis prioritise swastika tatts over Muslim bans, and that's more than a stylistic choice.
  12. That's all you can think of in terms of far right domestic and international politics? Well ok then.
  13. You keep saying that, but I'm still mystified as to why. And as you're clearly a very clever guy, I can't understand why you're being obtuse with regards to the direct political implications of such a distinction.